Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 29/05/2025 10:39, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/05/2025 08:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:13:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

And who cares about future instability if C90 remains just as stable as
ever it was?

>
Even with the problems with const?
>
     char *strstr(const char *haystack, const char *needle);
>
Dennis Ritchie pointed out the trouble with that.

 Is C90 perfect? No, of course not. "C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success."
 Is there value in having a powerful, widely-available language that, when you turn your back for a moment, stays *exactly* where you left it? Hell, yes.
 

That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to C23. Once implemented, they don't change either.
I agree with all your are arguments on this, except for one - I can't understand why you think C90 is different from later C standards in this regard.